Welcome to the PokéCommunity!

Hi there! Thanks for visiting PokéCommunity. We’re a group of Pokémon fans dedicated to providing the best place on the Internet for discussing ideas and sharing fan-made content. Welcome! We’re glad you’re here.

In order to join our community we need you to create an account with us. Doing so will allow you to make posts, submit and view fan art and fan fiction, download fan-made games, and much more. It’s quick and easy; just click here and follow the instructions.

We’re on social media!

The Round TableHave a seat at the Round Table for in-depth discussions, extended or serious conversations, and current events. From world news to talks on life, growing up, relationships, and issues in society, this is the place to be.
Come be a knight.

A Republican Texas Judge has ordered a lesbian couple to live apart or give up custody of their children. According to Think Progress, Judge John Roach of McKinney, Texas has given Page Price 30 days to move out of the home she shares with Carolyn Compton and Compton’s two children from a previous marriage because he does not approve of Compton and Price’s “lifestyle.”

Roach has placed a “morality clause” in Compton’s divorce papers, which forbids Compton from having anyone she is not related to “by blood or marriage” in her home past 9:00 p.m. if the children are present. Same sex marriage is illegal in Texas, so by law, Compton cannot live with Price if she wishes to retain custody of her children.

Compton said that she and Price have been together for three years. Compton’s ex-husband rarely bothers to see the children and was previously arrested on charges of third-degree felony stalking in 2011, charges that he was able to plea down to criminal trespassing, a misdemeanor.

In a post on Facebook, Price wrote that Roach had inserted the morality clause into the divorce agreement when Compton’s ex-husband Joshua Compton attempted to gain custody of the children in 2011. The judge wrote that he disapproved of the two women’s “lifestyle.”

“Our children are all happy and well adjusted. By his enforcement, being that we cannot marry in this state, I have been ordered to move out of my home,” Price wrote.

The two women are working with attorneys to figure out what steps they can take to fight the state’s notoriously conservative court system.

Ken Upton Jr., senior staff attorney for Lambda Legal’s Dallas office, told the Dallas Voice newspaper that morality clauses are a holdover from a time when judges tried to keep people with children from living together outside of marriage. Courts often insert the clauses without telling the people involved, particularly in backward, conservative areas like Collin County, Texas.

“What the clause has become is an extra burden on gay people because they’re no more likely to violate it than straight people,” Upton told the Voice. “It’s a problem that continues with homophobia.”

The offices themselves might be nonpartisan, but it would far more difficult to ensure that the judges are, actually. Obviously they can't start pulling a bunch of partisan warfare out of their ass, but a Republican-minded, Conservative judge would far more likely to bring up the "morality" clause than a liberal-minded Democratic judge would. Bringing it up shows no inclination towards any party officially, but it definitely shows us with which party his thought process lines up with. Although, s to some extent, I do agree that the title is misleading. They most likely put Republican in there as a way to get more people offended with the GOP and its unsavory choices.

That being said... I honestly feel for these two. They are in quite a bind here, when we all know that such a situation should not be able to arise--legally, nonetheless-- in the country that is supposed to be the "leader of the Free world." If I was them, I would simply find a loophole such as placing a trailer in the yard and having one of the ladies rent it out.. saying that it is not her home, but an additional housing unit that she acquiring rent from. I don't the technicalities of the law, so when it says "home" they might mean entire property, but I'm sure that there is some simple way it could be worked around.

First, Judge Roach campaigns for his position, this is not a Federal Judge Position; thus, he is elected within his local district. He is elected by a community that largely identifies as social conservative and runs as a Republican. So, on this point I agree with X.

This is from his website:
"My name is John Roach, Jr. and I am the Presiding Judge of the 296th Judicial District Court. I am running for reelection in the upcoming Republican Party and I would like to ask you for you support and vote...After you learn about my life experience, my military service, my legal education and background, my service to our community and my service within the Republican Party I think you will understand why I can confidently ask you for your vote...Judge Roach has resided in Collin County for 37 years. He has been involved in the Collin County Republican Party since the age of 8. He has voted in every Republican Primary in Collin County since the age of 18. He has been a delegate or alternate to National and State Republican Conventions, served as Co-Chair of the Collin County Lincoln Day Dinner, received the Dixie Clem Award, which recognizes the Outstanding Collin County Young Republican, and is a Founding Member of the Collin County Young Republicans. He is an Associate Member of the Golden Corridor Republican Women's Club and Conner Harrington Republican Women's Club."

"So much for Republicans wanting to keep government out of people's lives."

In defense of what Freaky was saying, despite this judge's political ideology, it doesn't necessarily mean his actions speak for other Republican/Conservative Judges nor the Republican party. When either a democrat or republican make a poor decision, it doesn't necessarily speak on behalf of the entire party. Generalizations should not be made from one judge; seldom would any other Republican or conservative judge agree with the verdict given the illogical legal reasoning employed.

So there is partial truth to what both of you are stating. X and Freaky

People like this judge make me feel embarrassed about being a Texan! She isn't hurting anyone by having her partner there, but unfortunately, seeing as things tend to go down here, the judge probably won't reverse his orders.

"So much for Republicans wanting to keep government out of people's lives."

In defense of what Freaky was saying, despite this judge's political ideology, it doesn't necessarily mean his actions speak for other Republican/Conservative Judges nor the Republican party. When either a democrat or republican make a poor decision, it doesn't necessarily speak on behalf of the entire party. Generalizations should not be made from one judge; seldom would any other Republican or conservative judge agree with the verdict given the illogical legal reasoning employed.

So there is partial truth to what both of you are stating. X and Freaky

People like this judge make me feel embarrassed about being a Texan! She isn't hurting anyone by having her partner there, but unfortunately, seeing as things tend to go down here, the judge probably won't reverse his orders.

Well I wasn't directly referencing gay marriage platform; supporting gay marriage vs custodial rights/civil unions is quite a difference. Most republicans support civil unions, and further, we are discussing conservative/republican-leaning judges and how they would have decided this case, rather than their stance on gay marriage.

Actually, I thought this was interesting:
"According to a recent ABC News/Washington Post 2013 poll, 52% of Republicans under the age of 50 now support the legal right for same-sex couples to marry. Support for the freedom to marry has increased dramatically among every demographic. And the most concerning statistic for the GOP is this—81% of 18-29 year-olds support marriage for all."

I know from college that all of the conservative/republican students, urm, except one or two, supported gay marriages. So, this actually corroborated some of my own observances of the young GOP.

Anyway, most conservative judges would not have ruled accordingly. This judge is different in that he belongs to a polar extreme form of social conservatism by which he is obligated to engage or he will lose reelection. Most other district courts are not as captive to extreme social conservatism, even in conservative districts and implement more moderate legal reasoning especially at the Federal Court Level. Therefore, many, if not most, self-proclaimed conservative/republican judges would not have made the same judgement against the the couple. In the article provided above, there is corroborating evidence that Republicans/conservative electorates affect judgeship ideology. Further, Texas Republicans are much different in their ideology than another Republican Judge, let's say in Ohio or Maine. The point being, a substantive number, if not majority, of conservative/republican judges would have ruled differently depending upon their constitutions and political ideology within the umbrella of conservatism, thus, it is unfair to generalize.

There's probably something in the agreement about leaving the state with the child. When my parents got divorced (also in Texas), it wasn't until my father willingly signed away his visitation rights until we could get out of there. Just a bit of insight as to why she'd stay there.

There's probably something in the agreement about leaving the state with the child. When my parents got divorced (also in Texas), it wasn't until my father willingly signed away his visitation rights until we could get out of there. Just a bit of insight as to why she'd stay there.

My parents technically have joint custody. Because of what's written in that agreement, my father (who had primary custody; mother was secondary) wasn't allowed to take us out-of-country. Not even for vacations. He wanted to go to Egypt one year, but my mother said she'd take him to court for it.

This ruling is pure hate and ignorance and should not be legal. Since they can't get married, what is the proof of their romantic relationship in the eyes of this judge? What if they were just friends, would this even be an issue? Because clearly this ruling has nothing to do with the effects of two women raising children, but some old persons prejudice and hate towards non-heterosexual couples. A homeowner should be able to allow whoever they want to live in their own house.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H. L. Mencken, unsourced

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"- Isaac Asimov, Column in Newsweek (21 January 1980) [source]

The PokéCommunity

Meta

Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.